Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome everyone who's here in the hearing room today and who's watching the hearing online.
• When we hear the bills on the agenda, we will hear from a maximum of two primary witnesses in support
• And so I'd like to hear how you try to make sure that...
• You hear me talk about how I represent the border region.
• I didn’t hear your organization.

Committee: House Elections

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• President, you can understand when I hear the words rule suspension, my radar gets turned on.
• The Chair hears pass on that item. That's the main sub-bill for the day.
• And every day hearing from people that cannot afford to pay their bills.
• Hearing none, Amendment Number 4 is withdrawn.
• Chair hears none. Question now comes on adoption of the order. No.

Keywords: 1212, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I am Chair Alvarez, and we welcome you to our hearing today.
• We'll hear from the UCNA. All right. Thank you, Assembly members.
• We'll hear from the UCNA. All right. Thank you, Assembly members.
• Education Code requires us to consistently revisit Title IX in hearings throughout the year.
• Let's hear from the Legislative Analyst's Office. Florence Buffe?

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance, chaired by Assemblymember Alvarez, held a hearing focused on University of California budget issues. The committee reviewed UC core operations funding, enrollment trends, federal funding threats, Title IX implementation, and basic needs support. Major themes included the end of the Governor’s multi-year UC compact, the state’s fiscal outlook, UC’s enrollment growth, and the potential impacts of federal policy changes on research, health care, and student aid. On core funding, the Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to continue compact-related support, defer some payments, and authorize a cash-flow loan. The LAO recommended a smaller or no base increase, earmarking some funds for capital renewal, retiring deferrals when possible, avoiding new compact commitments, and funding UC annually rather than through compacts. UC argued that the compact has supported enrollment growth, student services, and operating costs, but said campuses face rising expenses, structural deficits, and limited reserves. Members questioned the effects of deferrals on students and discussed the need to prioritize less harmful reductions if cuts become necessary. The enrollment panel focused on UC’s growth in California resident enrollment and the nonresident replacement plan at Berkeley, UCLA, and UC San Diego. The LAO recommended maintaining the current enrollment target, funding enrollment separately from base increases, pausing the nonresident replacement plan, and holding enrollment flat in 2027-28. UC said it has already met compact enrollment goals, grown California undergraduate enrollment by about 18,800 students, and that further growth depends on ongoing state support. The committee also discussed the cost of enrollment growth, possible differential nonresident tuition, and a reporting request for UC to analyze the nonresident replacement approach; the motion to adopt supplemental reporting language passed. The hearing also covered federal funding risks, with the LAO and UC warning that federal changes could affect research grants, medical center reimbursement, and student financial aid. UC said research cancellations and suspensions are disrupting labs and graduate student support, while federal health policy changes could increase uncompensated care at UC hospitals. In the Title IX update, UC described its systemwide civil rights structure, annual student training, and campus support offices, and members praised the work while asking about ongoing concerns and intersegmental collaboration. The final basic-needs item began with Finance stating the Governor’s budget does not change ongoing support, but the transcript cuts off before further discussion or action.

Transcript Highlights:

• But we did hear...
• All right, that will end the hearing.
• That will end the hearing for House House.
• Chairman and committee members for hearing this bill today.
• I was trying to weigh what I was just hearing there.

Committee: House General Laws

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Unfortunately, at the hearing, I didn't hear a commitment. explicitly or even theoretically to the investments
• We will now move into our hearing. Thank you.
• So, I look forward to hearing from Mr.
• Thank you for convening this hearing.
• Chairman, thank you for this hearing today.

Committee: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee

Keywords: state policy, governance, legislative processes, public concerns, policy improvement

Summary: During the committee meeting, various issues surrounding state policy and governance were deliberated. Although the specifics of bills under discussion were not highlighted, comments from several committee members indicated a focus on improving legislative processes and addressing public concerns. The chairman facilitated discussions that included several points of critique as well as suggestions for enhancement of existing laws. The atmosphere remained constructive despite the complexity of the topics at hand.

Transcript Highlights:

• Comments are open until the end of our hearing and are posted upon adjournment from our hearing.
• Um, when the Senate hearings took place in Georgia.
• Is there an objection to hear, the chair hears none. The bill is left pending.
• I want to thank y'all for hearing this bill.
• The chair hears none. The bill is left pending.

Bills: HB429 , HB496 , HB640 , HB657 , HB665 , HB677 , HB952

Committee: House Elections

Keywords: Texas Election Code, elections, voting station, polling place, ballot marking, ballot reading, child accompaniment, minor, parental supervision, voter education, secretary of state, county election administrator, voter assistance, election administration, poll worker rules, ballot secrecy, HB 496, ballot option, none of the above, abstain from vote

Transcript Highlights:

• So definitely want to hear more about that going forward.
• So definitely want to hear more about that going forward.
• I think we hear that loud and clear.
• The other item that was in the hearing materials was around access.
• The other item that was in the hearing materials was around access.

Summary: The committee heard presentations on the Governor’s education budget proposals for the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), Learning Recovery Block Grant, and Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), followed by testimony from State Board of Education President Linda Darling-Hammond. On LCFF, Finance outlined the proposed 2.43% COLA, repayment of prior deferrals, and a trailer bill penalty for LEAs that fail to adopt Local Control Accountability Plans on time. The LAO said its COLA estimate was slightly lower and raised concerns that the Governor’s proposed TK staffing ratio increase may be more costly than estimated. Members also discussed whether the current COLA formula should better reflect California-specific or district staffing costs, and whether TK should be more clearly separated from the K-3 grade span adjustment to avoid larger K-3 class sizes. The chair asked staff to work with the LAO on both the TK/K-3 issue and alternative COLA calculations. For the Learning Recovery Block Grant, Finance proposed restoring the first of three delayed payments, $378.6 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund, while the LAO recommended adopting the proposal but extending the expenditure deadline by at least a year. The LAO reported that districts had spent $1.6 billion of the $6.8 billion received through 2023-24 and said most districts were only now shifting from federal COVID relief to block grant spending. Members questioned whether the large state and federal investments were improving outcomes, citing declining reading and math trends, while Finance and the State Board president pointed to some signs of improvement, especially in math, attendance, and gains for some student groups. Darling-Hammond emphasized that student needs have grown, that recovery spending has gone to devices, ventilation, staffing, tutoring, summer school, and community schools, and that targeted interventions appear to be helping some districts recover faster than others. On ELOP, Finance proposed adding $435 million to expand universal access by lowering the Tier 1 threshold from 75% to 55% unduplicated pupils, bringing ongoing funding to $4.4 billion. The LAO said the estimate was reasonable but recommended delaying implementation for a year, aligning ELOP with ASES to reduce overlap, moving toward funding based on participation rather than enrollment, and considering a fixed Tier 2 rate. Members and witnesses discussed staffing challenges, the use of funds for students with disabilities, and uncertainty in Tier 2 funding caused by unspent dollars and opt-outs. Darling-Hammond supported ELOP as part of California’s broader after-school and summer learning strategy, said most districts are now offering full-day TK and expanded learning, and urged the state to reduce fragmentation across categorical programs and build more unified systems for funding, reporting, and support.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, we will begin today's hearing.
• Can you hear me okay? Yes?
• Can you hear me? Lawrence Family Health Center. Hi, my name is Lucy. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.
• Melissa, can you hear us? I'm here. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Sorry, it's my first time.
• Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can. We can't see you. Thank you. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee opened a hearing of the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure focused on health care and human services, reviewed testimony logistics, and then heard a long series of witnesses on several bills. Much of the testimony centered on interstate licensure compacts for dentistry, social work, and occupational therapy, with supporters arguing these compacts would improve workforce mobility, continuity of care, and access while preserving state oversight and public protection. Dental witnesses were split on H.455/S.257, with supporters backing the AADB dental compact for its hands-on exam, background checks, and disciplinary safeguards, while opponents argued a competing compact would better promote portability and avoid conflicts tied to proprietary testing and outside commissions. Social work witnesses strongly supported H.380/S.252, emphasizing continuity of care for clients who move across state lines, reduced costs and delays for practitioners, and the compact’s public-protection features; occupational therapy witnesses similarly supported H.427/S.256, citing access, telehealth, military families, and maintained standards. The committee also heard testimony on S.242, which would expand licensure for lactation care providers. Supporters, including lactation counselors and health center staff, said adding certified lactation counselors and related credentials would expand access, improve breastfeeding support, and allow reimbursement for services now often provided without billing. They described the training required and said the bill would help families, especially in underserved communities. Representative James O’Day also testified in support of the social work compact, and a Council of State Governments witness provided background on compact mechanics and state participation. Another major topic was H.419/S.214 on medical debt. Physicians and researchers testified that cancer patients experience long-lasting medical debt and collections burdens, and they supported limits on the sale and collection of medical debt, bans on reporting it to credit bureaus, and related consumer protections. The hearing also included H.465 on a pathway to special licensure for certain long-term limited-registration dentists serving MassHealth patients, which Representative Senna supported as a way to allow immigrant dentists to practice independently. Finally, the committee heard sharply divided testimony on H.444/S.284, which would allow trained dental hygienists to administer Botox and dermal fillers: supporters framed it as a safe, preventive, and access-expanding tool for TMJ, bruxism, and pain management, while dermatologists opposed it as outside hygienists’ training and a patient-safety risk. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I didn't hear the first part. You'll read the bill in. Black.
• Hearing none, the motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. No.
• Hearing none, the motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. No.
• Well, I couldn't hear you, sorry.
• I still would like to hear from CATS and BREC. Okay, is Representative...

Summary: The committee first took up HB 431, which would require annual training for municipal mayors and related local officials. An amendment was adopted to add municipal retirement systems to the training categories. Representative Carlson and Louisiana Municipal Association President Mayor Ray Bork said the bill was intended to provide at least 16 hours of annual continuing education, with LMA developing and accrediting the curriculum. Members asked about online options, flexibility, and whether there would be penalties; the author said there would be no penalty beyond public reporting on the annual audit. The committee then approved the bill favorably. HB 150, by Representative Borek, would authorize Cameron Parish to establish a locally funded insurance or subsidy program to help residents recover and repopulate after storm damage. Members discussed flood insurance, FEMA Risk Rating 2.0, and whether the program would affect private insurance markets; the author said it was meant as a local subsidy, not a state-funded insurance program. The bill was reported favorably. HB 822, by Representative Newell, would remove nonprofit entities from appointing board members to certain economic development districts if they are not in compliance with Secretary of State filings; members agreed to add a two-year forfeiture period, and the bill was advanced. The committee then heard HB 204, which would require monthly financial reports from certain Baton Rouge-area agencies to the Legislative Auditor. An amendment removed the Council on Aging from the bill. Representatives from CATS and BREC said their financial statements and audits are already posted online, while the author argued the bill would provide more detailed, real-time vendor-level spending information like the Louisiana Checkbook. The Legislative Auditor said the office could receive the records but would likely need redactions and could face added workload; after extended debate, the bill was voluntarily deferred. The committee also approved HB 136 on Harahan classified police hiring, HB 376 extending provisional hire time in fire and police civil service from 60 to 90 days, HB 377 giving the State Civil Service Commission flexibility in setting pay ranges for state examiners, HB 450 clarifying veterans’ points in civil service exams, HB 273 repealing a duplicate local tax-distribution statute, HB 1068 allowing longer exclusive garbage collection and disposal contracts, HB 864 creating a fire limit to prohibit flammable storage under certain state or municipal structures in New Orleans, and HB 444 adding two members to the East Baton Rouge Recreation and Park Commission board with a technical amendment correcting the Senate district member.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we hear from our business... safe, reliable, quality care in their area.
• Did I hear that correctly? I do.
• Because I want to hear the gentleman, and I want everybody to be able to hear him.
• Did you say hard of hearing?” “She did.
• Did you say heart of hearing? She did.

Summary: The chamber first established a quorum, then moved through House Bills for Perfection. The first major measure discussed was House Bill 305, which would set policies for reconsideration of library materials in public and school libraries, require appeals processes, and prohibit tracking or retaining personalized user data, especially for minors. Supporters framed it as a local-control and parental-rights bill that largely codifies existing library practices, while some members raised concerns about the privacy language and whether materials should be removed during reconsideration. After discussion, the House adopted the committee substitute and ordered the bill perfected and printed. Members then took up House Bills 2366 and 2511, a bipartisan construction-industry bill aimed at combating illegal labor and off-the-books hiring. The bill would give the Attorney General more investigative authority, including subpoena power, require complaints to be made by affidavit, and impose stronger penalties on violators. Supporters said it would protect law-abiding contractors and workers and level the playing field, while some members asked about possible overreach and whether the bill could be used against businesses unfairly. The substitute was adopted and the bills were ordered perfected and printed. House Bill 2409 followed, proposing child care tax credits for contributions to providers, employer assistance, and provider expansion; it was presented as a response to Missouri’s child care shortage and workforce challenges. Members from both parties largely supported it as an economic and family policy, though one member noted the bill’s fiscal cost and contrasted it with recent budget cuts to child care subsidies. The House adopted the substitute and ordered the bill perfected and printed. The chamber also considered House Bill 1885, which makes changes to the Missouri Clean Water Commission by adjusting membership qualifications and conflict-of-interest rules to make appointments easier while adding recusal procedures. Members said the changes would help fill vacancies and bring in knowledgeable members, and the bill was ordered perfected and printed. House Bill 2658 addressed telephony laws, expanding the no-call list to any phone subscriber, adding anti-spoofing provisions, and creating penalties for caller ID spoofing; an amendment adding misdemeanor penalties for spoofing was adopted, and the bill was then perfected and printed. House Bill 1919 would require more employers to file certain tax withholding documents electronically, aligning state practice with IRS rules; it passed with support and was ordered perfected and printed. Finally, House Bill 1871, an omnibus elections bill, proposed several election administration changes, including electronic receipt of notices, shifting filing deadlines away from holidays, expanding testing windows for voting equipment, protecting the confidentiality of the permanently disabled voter list, requiring tax compliance for certain local candidates, and tightening write-in candidate rules. A key amendment removed an expansion of no-excuse absentee voting to keep the fiscal note at zero; that amendment was debated at length and then adopted before the bill moved forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today's hearing covers two departments: the Office of Emergency Services and the Department of Justice
• We will take public comment on all issues at the end of today's hearing.
• You should have a handout that we prepared for this hearing.
• And we want to include your testimony in the official hearing records.
• We have concluded now the agenda for today's hearing.

Summary: The committee heard an overview from Cal OES on disaster response, LA wildfire recovery, federal FEMA reimbursements, security monitoring, and the state’s 911 transition. Cal OES said its budget supports disaster preparedness and recovery, including ongoing work in Los Angeles, where it reported about 700 FEMA public assistance applications totaling roughly $1.2 billion and about $545 million in state wildfire response and recovery funding already allocated under AB 100. Members pressed for more detail on FEMA delays, hazard mitigation grants, federal event planning, and the status of Operation Stonegarden, while also raising concerns about small-disaster recovery, federal shutdown impacts, and the need for more timely reporting. A major portion of the hearing focused on Next Generation 911. Cal OES described problems with the current regional deployment, especially call-routing and transfer failures, and said it now plans to shift to a statewide provider as an interim step, then run an open procurement for a long-term vendor. The agency said it expects to execute a bridging contract in the coming weeks, release an RFP in the second quarter of 2026, award a long-term contract in the fall, begin transitioning Los Angeles-area PSAPs ahead of the 2028 Olympics, and complete statewide migration by summer 2030. The LAO urged the Legislature to pause further implementation until it has more information on the problems, alternatives, costs, privacy/security issues, and oversight needs, and recommended quarterly and monthly reporting if the project proceeds. Several senators echoed concerns about cost, redundancy, cybersecurity, and whether the statewide model could create new risks, and the chair said she would pursue a joint oversight hearing with the Emergency Management Committee and seek input from the State Auditor. The Department of Justice then presented its overall workload and budget pressures. DOJ highlighted its work on fentanyl enforcement, human trafficking, firearms recovery, housing enforcement, consumer protection, environmental and civil rights litigation, and a large federal litigation workload, saying it has filed 59 lawsuits against the Trump administration and won most of them. DOJ said the added federal cases and other mandates have strained existing staff, though 44 additional hires have been made. Members praised DOJ’s work on immigration, housing, and federal accountability, and asked for more information on detention facilities and staffing. The committee also reviewed DOJ’s firearms-related budget proposals. DOJ requested funding for continued firearms IT modernization, implementation of SB 704 on firearm barrels, and a temporary shift of Bureau of Firearms costs to the General Fund. The LAO supported the IT modernization request but recommended funding SB 704 from the Dealer’s Record of Sale Special Account, with startup costs covered by a loan from the Firearm Safety and Enforcement Special Fund, and suggested limiting the General Fund shift to one year and treating it as a loan. The LAO also asked DOJ to develop a framework by January 10, 2027, for deciding which firearm and ammunition workload should be supported by fee revenue rather than the General Fund.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we'll hear from the commissioner.
• And Antonio, yes, have a seat, and we'll hear from you after Jill.
• We just hear for questions and nothing else. I am.
• With that, we're going to close public hearing on Senate Bill 6074.
• And we also close public hearing on Senate Bill 6041.

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 6239, which would require civil arbitration for tort claims against the state and its subdivisions before trial. Staff explained current tort-claim procedures and said the bill would apply arbitration to claims of any dollar amount, with a fiscal note pending. The sponsor said Washington’s liability exposure is unusually high and argued the bill would promote early resolution without limiting jury trials, damage caps, or attorney fees. Members asked who pays for arbitration and whether trial rights are preserved; staff said costs are generally split and the bill preserves a jury trial de novo. Testimony on SB 6239 was sharply divided. Counties, cities, school districts, risk pools, and some public-safety groups supported the bill, saying rising liability and insurance costs are straining budgets and threatening core services. Opponents included trial lawyers, legal aid groups, victim advocates, journalists, and survivors of abuse, who argued the bill would create barriers to justice, delay relief, increase costs for claimants, reduce transparency, and retraumatize survivors by forcing private arbitration before a public trial. Several witnesses said the bill was too broad because it would cover employment, contract, and other claims, not just torts involving abuse or negligence. After public testimony closed, the committee noted the large number of sign-ins, with far more in opposition than in support. The committee then took up Senate Bill 6074, which would reinstate parole for certain felony offenses committed on or after July 1, 2027, allow eligible incarcerated people to petition the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board after serving 60% of their sentence, and create a parole implementation work group. Supporters said it would recognize rehabilitation and improve reentry, while some witnesses raised concerns about the bill’s prospective-only application, the 60% threshold, and the need to address racial disparities and parole criteria more fully. The sponsor said the parole bill was paired with tort-liability reform because criminal justice reform advocates have said liability changes are needed to restore parole in Washington.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> We did get an email about the hearing today. >> Sorry.
• I have committee for the hearing today.
• hear all of<00:06:56.000><c> those.
• And as a mom, did seeing and hearing those moms have any impact?
• I've been focusing on trying to get the public hearing together.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're hearing from voters.
• We're hearing from voters.
• We're hearing from voters.
• And you know when we hear that these things are going to do, I mean I would like to hear basically what
• And you know when we hear that these things are going to do, I mean I would like to hear basically what

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Manell here, by noon the day before the scheduled hearing.
• signs, noise, or demonstrations that disrupt the committee's work may result in removal from the hearing
• and thirdly all substantive hearing and thirdly all substantive amendments<00:01:28.799><c> must</c>
• the uh the privilege of hearing from the uh State<00:02:28.519><c> Guardian</c><00:02:28.879><c> ad<
• And finally, we filed court reports in over 16,000 court hearings.

Committee: House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• At this hearing, we will hear testimony on Initiative Petition 25-12, H.503, an act to implement all-party
• Right and left, we hear these issues.
• Right and left, we hear these issues.
• And so that's why you're hearing some frustration up here from my colleagues whenever we hear the system's
• And we can hear your frustration, certainly. I know you can hear our frustration too.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-12, H.503, a proposal to implement all-party state primaries for Massachusetts state and federal elections. The committee opened with procedural remarks explaining Article 48 requirements and then heard first from two subject-matter experts. Professor Costas Panagopoulos of Northeastern University testified that top-two primary systems in other states have produced mixed results: they may modestly increase primary turnout in some cases, but the research does not show a reliable reduction in polarization, and such systems can weaken party gatekeeping, increase strategic behavior, raise campaign spending, and reduce general-election choice for voters whose preferred party is not on the ballot. Katie King of the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined the different primary models used nationwide, explained that Massachusetts currently uses an open-to-unaffiliated primary, and reviewed legal distinctions between blanket primaries and top-two systems; she noted that blanket primaries were struck down by the Supreme Court, while Washington’s top-two system was upheld because it narrows the field rather than nominating party candidates. She also said voter education and administrative preparation would be important if the system changed. The proponents’ panel, led by Danielle Allen of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, argued that Massachusetts has chronically uncompetitive elections, low turnout, and too many uncontested races, and that all-party primaries would give every voter a meaningful choice in the first round and force candidates to appeal to a broader electorate. Allen said the proposal is designed specifically for Massachusetts and differs from other states by allowing party endorsements to appear on the ballot, which supporters said would preserve useful information while shifting control of the preliminary election from party insiders to voters. Jim Henderson, the coalition’s counsel, said the bill is narrowly tailored to state-level primaries and would amend Chapter 53 to put all voters on equal footing. Other supporters, including Kevin Johnson, Kate Kavanaugh, and Spencer Reynolds, emphasized that the reform could increase competition, reduce polarization, improve participation by independents and underrepresented voters, and create more accountability to the full electorate. Committee members pressed the witnesses on turnout, the practical effect of endorsements, whether the proposal would simply shift party influence to an earlier stage, and whether it could disadvantage minority-party or independent candidates. Senator Fattman repeatedly asked about evidence that turnout would materially increase, while Representative Peisch and others questioned whether requiring or seeking endorsements would create new barriers or pressure candidates to clear the field. Supporters responded that the system would modestly increase primary participation, that the general election would remain the decisive contest, and that endorsements would be optional and handled through party rules. No vote was taken at the hearing; the committee heard testimony and questions only.

Transcript Highlights:

• You will hear from one of them tonight.
• My concern, though, is sometimes you don't always hear fire.
• I did want to hear from both sides on that.
• You're going to hear testimony about it, I'm sure.
• And you can hear the inverters turning, okay, you can hear the noise, the pollution.

Committee: House Special Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, I'd like to hear from finance as well. Thank you, sir.
• Sometimes it’s better to hear from a peer than someone else.”
• And I feel like we deserve to hear from them.
• I just really want to thank you for this hearing.
• elderly clients undergoing elderly parole hearings.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held a hearing on the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) budget, with a focus on prison population trends, spending, facility closures, and efforts to find savings. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) presented data showing the prison and parole populations have fallen sharply over the past 20 years while CDCR spending has remained high, driven largely by security, health care, litigation-related requirements, and aging infrastructure. The LAO also said the state is likely to have several thousand empty beds by 2030 and recommended closing another prison, identifying the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad as the strongest candidate, while also urging more transparency around facility deactivations and the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) efficiency contract. CDCR Secretary Jeff McCumber said the department faces structural budget pressures from retirement payouts, workers’ compensation, overtime, medical transport, aging facilities, and violence in prisons, but emphasized declining recidivism, expanding reentry beds, and the need for more single-celling and rehabilitation. Department of Finance representative Anthony Franzoa said the administration is not proposing another prison closure at this time, opposed new reporting requirements on deactivations, and said the BCG contract is intended to produce long-term savings even if near-term estimates are being revised downward. Amber Rose Howard of California United for Responsible Budget argued the state should close more prisons, redirect funds to community services, and stop spending on excess prison capacity. Members questioned why CDCR still relies on vacancy savings, why rehabilitation is only a small share of the budget, and whether the department should be more transparent about capacity reductions and legal liabilities. Several members criticized the $20 million BCG contract and the lack of competitive bidding, while others pressed CDCR on staffing levels, single-celling, suicide prevention, and health care costs for older incarcerated people. The hearing did not take a formal vote, but it ended with clear committee concern about CDCR’s budget transparency, the pace of prison closures, and the need to align spending more closely with the declining prison population and the department’s stated rehabilitation mission.

Transcript Highlights:

• Can you hear me? You can go first. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Okay. of our equity budget.
• Can you hear me? You can go first. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Okay. Good afternoon, Mr.
• Chair, for having this very important hearing.
• Thank you to Assemblymember Lee for leading this hearing.
• Sorry for being hard to hear here. Okay.

Summary: The Assembly Human Services Committee held an informational hearing with members of the API Legislative Caucus on California’s Stop the Hate Program and broader efforts to address hate incidents. Opening remarks emphasized the rise in hate during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of culturally and linguistically competent services, and the program’s role in serving not only AAPI communities but also Latino, Black, Jewish, Muslim, LGBTQ+, immigrant, and other impacted communities. Legislators and presenters repeatedly highlighted the value of trusted community-based organizations (CBOs) in reaching people who may not report to law enforcement or seek traditional services. The first panel included the California Commission on Asian and Pacific Islander American Affairs, the Department of Social Services (CDSS), and the Commission on the State of Hate. They described the program’s origins in the state’s equity budget, its funding structure, and its service model: direct victim services, prevention, and intervention. CDSS said 180 organizations statewide have participated, with grantees selected based on experience, capacity, and service to priority populations. The Commission on the State of Hate reported that hate remains widespread and underreported, citing survey data showing about 3.1 million Californians experienced at least one hate act in a year and that many victims need mental health, legal, and other supports beyond police response. Members asked about best practices, youth impacts, administrative costs, and the role of regional leads; CDSS said it would provide more detail on funding distribution and that the final evaluation is still in progress. The second panel featured grantees from Jewish Family Service San Diego, Inland Chinese American Association, Center for Empowering Refugees and Immigrants, and Equality California. They gave examples of how Stop the Hate funding supported culturally specific response teams, counseling, language-access services, self-defense and safety workshops, youth and elder programming, legal navigation, and reporting tools. Several speakers said the program helped build trust, reduce isolation, and connect people to services they otherwise would not use. Legislators pressed the panel on lessons learned, whether the model should be reauthorized, and what would be lost if funding ends. Panelists emphasized that the program’s flexibility, regional convenings, and support for small, trusted organizations were key strengths, while also noting the need for more direct funding to frontline providers and more data on what interventions work best.

Transcript Highlights:

• So let's just, let's hear the sponsor. And then we'll hear from the proponents and opponents.
• This committee may hear bills.
• But as a practical... ...hear bills.
• Yeah, and I hear you. So this is what I can understand.
• You all get to hear it from me time.

Bills: HB99 , HB38 , HB165 , HB127 , HB72 , HB151 , SB40 , SB104 , SB136 , SB164

Committee: Senate House Judiciary

Keywords: medical malpractice, malpractice reform, patient's compensation fund, PCF, health care liability, tort reform, damage caps, punitive damages, hospital liability, physician liability, nurse practitioner, certified nurse-midwife, outpatient facility, ambulatory surgical center, urgent care, free-standing emergency room, insurance surcharge, superintendent of insurance, New Mexico hospitals, medical review process

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 40, a committee substitute addressing automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and privacy. Sponsor Sen. Worth said the bill was intended to preserve ALPRs as a law-enforcement tool while adding guardrails to prevent sharing or selling data for immigration enforcement, protected health care activity, or criminalizing constitutionally protected conduct. Supporters included state and local law enforcement, the ACLU, immigrant-rights, reproductive-rights, and sexual-assault advocacy groups. Law enforcement witnesses said the bill balanced privacy with public safety and cited cases where ALPRs helped locate kidnapped children, murder suspects, and stolen vehicles; opponents and some senators argued the bill was too narrow, too focused on immigration and health care, and raised concerns about federal law, data sales, and enforcement. After debate, the committee adopted an amendment removing subsection F, then approved the committee substitute and advanced SB 40 on a do-pass motion. The committee then heard Senate Bill 104, which would create a process for removing wildlife commissioners after the 2023 wildlife commission legislation and the governor’s veto of the prior removal language. Sen. Worth explained that SB 104 would allow the governor to initiate removal for malfeasance, incompetence, or failure to attend meetings, with notice, a hearing, and exclusive review by the state Supreme Court; he said it was modeled on the Board of Regents removal process and was intended to complete the wildlife commission reforms. The New Mexico Wildlife Federation, Audubon Southwest, and the Department of Game and Fish supported the bill, saying it would depoliticize wildlife management and provide stability. Senators asked about the existing “three consecutive meetings” vacancy language, current vacancies, and the prior removal of a commissioner. The committee discussed the governor’s earlier veto and whether the bill was necessary, but no amendment was adopted and the committee approved SB 104 on a do-pass motion.